environmental degradation-a question to discuss

[eremon]

Environmental degradation has been the by-product of economic growth in the past and continues to be so in many ways, despite a greater awareness of environmental issues. Some see the environmental degradation as the inevitable development of technology; so that the only way to protect the environment would be to slow down or even cease technology. Others argue that environmental degradation has happened because of the way economic activity is organized in modern industrial economies, and we could have sustainable economic growth that is environmentally friendly if we organized it differently. For them, the culprit is not growth itself or technology, but the way growth is currently organized through markets.

What do you believe?

[piet11111]

Others argue that environmental degradation has happened because of the way economic activity is organized in modern industrial economies, and we could have sustainable economic growth that is environmentally friendly if we organized it differently.

the above is my position.

capitalism is about competition for producing the most as cheaply as possible.
being eco-friendly is not efficient at all so it is being avoided as much as possible as you can clearly see by america's resistance to the kyoto protocol.

ofcourse communism is not about competition with domestic and foreign capitalists so it can "afford" to be as eco-friendly as technology allows us to be.

and under communism its a hell of a lot easier to implement new technology's that are considered "too damn expensive" under capitalism.
like say replacing the old fossile fuel infratructure with a hydrogen infrastructure for our cars.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 11:15 am
Environmental degradation has been the by-product of economic growth in the past and continues to be so in many ways, despite a greater awareness of environmental issues. Some see the environmental degradation as the inevitable development of technology; so that the only way to protect the environment would be to slow down or even cease technology.
These people are clearly against humanity, as nothing has benifited us more than our technology. As piet has already pointed out it is the nature of capitlaims that is causing these problems. As long as the leeching classes are trying to amass the greatest number of debt tokens in shortest amount of time we will have these problems.


Others argue that environmental degradation has happened because of the way economic activity is organized in modern industrial economies, and we could have sustainable economic growth that is environmentally friendly if we organized it differently. For them, the culprit is not growth itself or technology, but the way growth is currently organized through markets.

What do you believe? The second, definatley the second, I cannot stress how loathsome I find people who subscribe to the first view: it's defeatest, anti-humanist and primitivist. A sustainable, environmentally friendly society is possible (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56869).

Hope this answers your question.

[Sentinel]

The economic anarchy and chaos that comes with capitalism is the reason why resources are harvested, used, and even dumped, maliciously to nature.

Also, it is of course a too low technology level that causes environmental damage, not a too high one. :rolleyes: Luckily, said damage is characteristic to a period that is coming to an end.

The best initial option when it comes to the inevitable replacing of capitalism would be a planned economy, but as I see it, it could only be a temporary solution.

Currency is outdated.

It might be necessary to use the price system until a selfsufficient technate can be founded, but not longer than that. Money must go!

Energy accounting would ultimately optimise production and eliminate waste nearly totally.

Like Jazz said, technocracy indeed seems like the way to go, when it comes to organising production and distribution.

And yeah, primitivism really is insane to the degree that we don't have to even take it seriously, unless the wackos are violent about it. Then they must be dealt with accordingly, as reactionaries of the worst kind.

[eremon]

ok, thank you all for your interesting comments!!


Sentinel
The economic anarchy and chaos that comes with capitalism is the reason why resources are harvested, used, and even dumped, maliciously to nature.

Jazzratt
These people are clearly against humanity, as nothing has benifited us more than our technology. As piet has already pointed out it is the nature of capitlaims that is causing these problems. As long as the leeching classes are trying to amass the greatest number of debt tokens in shortest amount of time we will have these problems.


piet11111
capitalism is about competition for producing the most as cheaply as possible.
being eco-friendly is not efficient at all so it is being avoided as much as possible as you can clearly see by america's resistance to the kyoto protocol.

from the above,it seems that all we agree that capitalism is the reason for the environmental degradation.

now,you have defined the reason of the problem:'capitalism is the reason'!
what about the solution?

the dominant class- governments and many economists- believe that environmental degradation can be managed if exhaustible resources are privately owned and for public goods,such as air, a tax or charge to people who despoiled them.this is a kind of reformation.

on the other hand,anti-capitalists activists believe that the solution is social ownership through the overthrown of capitalism and its substitution for a system without profits and private ownership.

sentinel says that :

'The best initial option when it comes to the inevitable replacing of capitalism would be a planned economy, but as I see it, it could only be a temporary solution.'

and piet11111 says that:

'ofcourse communism is not about competition with domestic and foreign capitalists so it can "afford" to be as eco-friendly as technology allows us to be.

and under communism its a hell of a lot easier to implement new technology's that are considered "too damn expensive" under capitalism.
like say replacing the old fossile fuel infratructure with a hydrogen infrastructure for our cars'

so,what about the solution???

[piet11111]

replacement of current infrastructure with cleaner more efficient alternatives.

say replacing the fossil fuel infrastructure we need for our gas-guzzling cars and start replacing the fuelpumps with hydrogen-fuel whatyoumaycall-ems for our hydrogen cars.

and building nuclear fusion facility's while closing down the traditional powerplants.

once we have cheap clean energy available we can start building nice silent magnetic levitation trains for public transport between city's.
just rent a science fiction movie that has a futuristic city in it i bet you can see more then enough stuff that is possible within a decade or so.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by eremon+--> (eremon)sentinel says that :

'The best initial option when it comes to the inevitable replacing of capitalism would be a planned economy, but as I see it, it could only be a temporary solution.' [/b]


so,what about the solution???


Me
Energy accounting would ultimately optimise production and eliminate waste nearly totally.

Like Jazz said, technocracy indeed seems like the way to go, when it comes to organising production and distribution.

Energy accounting (http://technocrat.phpwebhosting.com/simp/Technocracy_FAQ_1.x.htm#5.3.3)

Read this, it's about a method that would effectively eliminate overproduction and waste. I'd like to add that I don't belong to any technocratic organisation as it is, and would apply technocratic methods from an anarcho-communist perspective come revolution.

Also, I'm confident that future technology will be environmentally sustainable. Like I said earlier, our technology and the ways we use it are too primitive and are thus harmful to the environment.

[Vanguard1917]

What exactly is 'environmental degradation' and why is it automatically assumed to be a bad thing?

Take a look in dictionary.com and it becomes clear that 'degrade' is actually a very complex word. It can mean 'to weaken or worsen', 'to deteriorate'. But it can also mean to reduce to a lower rank, and to reduce in intensity. If humankind is to progress, we indeed need to reduce nature to a lower rank. In fact, human attempts to elevate itself to mastering its circumstances ('the enviroment') necessarily implies being able to lower the intensity of nature's power over humanity, to 'weaken' nature's power over human beings. Taking control of our circumstances means subjecting nature to the will of humanity.

We have to careful about employing the terminology of the Green petit-bourgeoisie. This is a clever trick that they have come up with, as a way of setting the boundaries of the debate. For example, it is now widely taken as a given that 'sustainable development' (a Green codeword for cutting production) is the answer to every problem facing 'the environment'.

In reality, history suggests that it is through mass economic and social development that humanity can prosper and deal with the problems that nature throws in our way. The problem with capitalism is not that it gives way to too much development; the problem with it is that it does not allow for nearly enough development.

If 'environmental degradation' means shaping and moulding nature to make it serve humanity better, then i support environmental degradation.

[piet11111]

the environmental degradation we are talking about is the type that forces us to use gasmasks in our city's.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 01:40 pm
the environmental degradation we are talking about is the type that forces us to use gasmasks in our city's.
You should write headlines for the tabloid press.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 06:15 am
Environmental degradation has been the by-product of economic growth in the past and continues to be so in many ways, despite a greater awareness of environmental issues. Some see the environmental degradation as the inevitable development of technology; so that the only way to protect the environment would be to slow down or even cease technology. Others argue that environmental degradation has happened because of the way economic activity is organized in modern industrial economies, and we could have sustainable economic growth that is environmentally friendly if we organized it differently. For them, the culprit is not growth itself or technology, but the way growth is currently organized through markets.

What do you believe?
Environmental destruction is due to human growth, as humans increase in number we use up resources and destroy the planet. This unfortunately is necessary if we want to live in societies that have material wealth. So we can either try to minimize this damage through efficient production and distribution or we can abandon technology and revert to more primitive living.

The rational choice is obvious.

charcoal is more efficient than wood, and coal is more efficient that charcoal, and oil is more efficient than coal, we see a trend to more efficient uses of energy. So with better uses of energy along with better planning (economic) and residential (no more suburbia), we can minimize the damage done to the environment. This of course is not possible within a capitalist system where the goal is to turn the maximum amount of resources to commodities.

[eremon]

QUOTE (eremon @ October 31, 2006 11:15 am)
Environmental degradation has been the by-product of economic growth in the past and continues to be so in many ways, despite a greater awareness of environmental issues. Some see the environmental degradation as the inevitable development of technology; so that the only way to protect the environment would be to slow down or even cease technology.


These people are clearly against humanity, as nothing has benifited us more than our technology. As piet has already pointed out it is the nature of capitlaims that is causing these problems. As long as the leeching classes are trying to amass the greatest number of debt tokens in shortest amount of time we will have these problems.

i think Jazzratt that Delirium BFSK is against humanity since he is proposing the abanbonment of technology as an answer to environmental degradation.... :huh:
Delirium BFSK said:

<<...So we can either try to minimize this damage through efficient production and distribution or we can abandon technology and revert to more primitive living.>>

[Delirium]

^ thats not what i&#39;m saying. primitivism would stop environmental destruction but at the cost of billions of human lives. I am advocating an efficiently run economy with infrastructure planning and conservation.

[eremon]

Delirium BFSK Posted on Just 54 minutes ago

^ thats not what i&#39;m saying. primitivism would stop environmental destruction but at the cost of billions of human lives. I am advocating an efficiently run economy with infrastructure planning and conservation.

ok Delirium BFSK,in this way i agree with you. i believe that a technological plan it would be efficient but i&#39;m sure this not feasible in a capitalist economy since its only interest is how to maximize profits and this occurs against human needs. it considers the protection of natural environmnet as an external cost against the process of maximizing profits and that&#39;s why it doesnt take any measure for the environment or if it takes it doesnt seems to be effective-Tokyo protokol is an example.

[Delirium]

I know, i am saying the same thing.

[eremon]

[(eremon) QUOTE]capitalism considers the protection of natural environmnet as an external cost against the process of maximizing profits and that&#39;s why it doesnt take any measure for the environment or if it takes it doesnt seems to be effective-Tokyo protokol is an example. [/QUOTE]





Environmental degradation is the regrettable by-product of human action’s primary purpose.
Interest in the environment has steadily increased over the last twenty or thirty years as a result of economic growth. A number of factors lie behind the emergence of this green consciousness, including some large-scale environmental disasters provoked by human actions. However, human actions are considered to be an unintended consequence, since the primary purpose isn’t the environmental protection.

Primary purpose is formed and depended by market forces.
In a competitive market the agents aren’t free to set prices and must buy or sell by the prices the market set. This means that market oblige producers to produce with the least costly method in order to survive. According to this, environmental degradation isn’t an inevitable consequence of growth, but of growth in an unregulated market economy.

[Janus]

What do you believe?
I definitely believe in sustainable development. We&#39;re definitely going to have to place more focus on developing alternative sources as well as more economical resource consumption. I think even the capitalists are realizing this to some degree particularly in the more environmentally friendly countries but there is still not enough attention on these issues as there should be.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 07:24 am
What exactly is &#39;environmental degradation&#39; and why is it automatically assumed to be a bad thing?
Could it be...because "degradation" by definition usually does mean a bad thing?


If &#39;environmental degradation&#39; means shaping and moulding nature to make it serve humanity better, then i support environmental degradation.

Obviously it does not, and nobody but you uses it to mean that. And yes, usage determines meaning, as any dictionary writer or editor will tell you.

"Environmental degradation" means the unintentional byproducts of "shaping" nature which make it serve humanity worse. Polluted air and water, etc.

As Marx put it: "Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth-the soil and the labourer."from Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm#S10)

And as Engels put it:

Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries. When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread the potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature -- but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.
source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm)

I&#39;ve pointed this out to you before, so I&#39;m not sure why you persist in pretending that only primitivists and semi-primitivists oppose the environmental ravages of capitalism.

Not only is that the historic position of communists - more importantly, it&#39;s the dynamic of the class struggle. Working people react not only against capitalism&#39;s effects on our economic well-being - we react against its environmental effects, which endanger our health.

This doesn&#39;t stop being a problem after the overthrow of capitalism, either. As the examples of the USSR and China show.

If economic decision-makers don&#39;t consider the environmental consequences, that will have disastrous consequences. That&#39;s true no matter what class is making the decisions. If you consider only short-term maximizing of production - you can cause all kinds of disasters - yes, for human beings, and even economic production - down the road. Consider the lands around the Aral Sea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/678898.stm)

But there is a difference. When workers begin to democratically make these decisions - we&#39;ll have an interest in making sure all human needs are met. We&#39;ll seek to increase production, certainly - but not without considering all the consequences.

As the example of Cuba shows. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57979) In contrast, Haiti is both the poorest and the most environmentally devastated country in the region - the two reinforce each other.

Now what is "reactionary" about that? Consider what progress and reaction means for a moment, even in terms of promoting growth of the productive forces.

On the contrary, careful environmental management, preventing environmental degradation and pollution - is part of "shaping and moulding nature to make it serve humanity better". It&#39;s a necessary part of sustaining economic growth for the long run.

Since the economy is not composed solely of machines - it includes people with lungs - and it includes agriculture as an irreplaceable source of food and some other raw materials.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 01:47 pm

Others argue that environmental degradation has happened because of the way economic activity is organized in modern industrial economies, and we could have sustainable economic growth that is environmentally friendly if we organized it differently.

the above is my position.

capitalism is about competition for producing the most as cheaply as possible.
being eco-friendly is not efficient at all so it is being avoided as much as possible as you can clearly see by america&#39;s resistance to the kyoto protocol.

ofcourse communism is not about competition with domestic and foreign capitalists so it can "afford" to be as eco-friendly as technology allows us to be.

and under communism its a hell of a lot easier to implement new technology&#39;s that are considered "too damn expensive" under capitalism.
like say replacing the old fossile fuel infratructure with a hydrogen infrastructure for our cars.
Yeah I agree, although that doesn&#39;t mean that a communist society can be complacent about environmental degradation. It&#39;s just that because the economy is focussed on providing what people need, rather than on growing continually and producing ever-increasing profits, there&#39;s more scope to tackle environmental problems seriously.

Also I think with people becoming more involved in their communities, and actually having control over their lives, will come a sense of responsibility for things like the environment, and a desire to improve the situation.

[apathy maybe]

Capitalism and conservation are not compatible because of the need for infinite resources (to enable infinite growth) implicit in capitalism. So environmental damage will always happen in a capitalist system. But even if we abolish capitalism, we will still have potential environmental problems. Three quick examples, the Sahara Desert used to be largely trees. Greece used to be covered in thick forest, as did Britain. In all three cases they were cut down by humans, before the advent of capitalism. We can see the same situation happening in the Amazon now. In more modern times we can look at the example of the USSR as a non "capitalist" state that massively damaged the environment.

Humans have the potential to really screw things up, and unless the socio/economic system is based around at least partly the (natural) environment, then it is likely that we will continue to do so.

The growth ethic (which can be seen in capitalism and some variants of work orientated socialism) is inherently destructive.


It is my opinion that an ecological anarchism is the only way to truly look after the natural environment. Decentralised, local communities have much less impact then massive cities or huge power grids. Local production reduces the need for transport, and thus for both transport fuels and huge road/rail networks. Local power production reduces the need for massive dams such as in China or Egypt that adversely affect down stream populations and habitats.

More efficient use of the natural environment is also essential, it is stupid growing cotton or rice in most parts of Australia. It is stupid growing sheep, goats or cattle as well.



Some see the environmental degradation as the inevitable development of technology; so that the only way to protect the environment would be to slow down or even cease technology.No, this is stupid. Yes technology has the possibility to really damage shit, but it also enables us to live more comfortable lives without damaging the environment so much. Without continuing to develop technology we would be stuck with shitty solar panels, land line phones (which require lots of cable to be laid) etc. We would still be stuck with inefficient cars and washing machines.


Others argue that environmental degradation has happened because of the way economic activity is organized in modern industrial economies, and we could have sustainable economic growth that is environmentally friendly if we organized it differently.Yes, see above.

[T]he culprit is not growth itself or technology, but the way growth is currently organized through markets.The culprit is growth (at least partly). To grow you need to consume. Additionally, it is perfectly possible to have a market system that is environmentally friendly. But capitalism is not it.


Originally posted by Mujer Libre
Yeah I agree, although that doesn&#39;t mean that a communist society can be complacent about environmental degradation. It&#39;s just that because the economy is focussed on providing what people need, rather than on growing continually and producing ever-increasing profits, there&#39;s more scope to tackle environmental problems seriously.

Also I think with people becoming more involved in their communities, and actually having control over their lives, will come a sense of responsibility for things like the environment, and a desire to improve the situation.Yar. This is a good point.

[Vanguard1917]

Could it be...because "degradation" by definition usually does mean a bad thing?

I showed that the word has positive connotations. It can mean to reduce to a lower rank, to weaken, to reduce in intensity. In this sense, we do need to degrade nature if we are to master it and make it serve our ends. Humanity cannot be free until it accomplishes this. The alternative is human degradation.


careful environmental management, preventing environmental degradation and pollution - is part of "shaping and moulding nature to make it serve humanity better". It&#39;s a necessary part of sustaining economic growth for the long run.

Of course, capitalism, as an irrational order (i.e. not subject to conscious human planning), does things to the environment that ought not to be done or that could be done better with workers&#39; control over industry.

However, if a major firm wanted to set up shop on some undeveloped land in the countryside - therefore creating jobs, giving way to urbanisation, helping to reduce the divisions between town and country - but this meant that the local air would be that much less fresher, that the local coastline would be that much less cleaner, that there would be a few less trees, and a local breed of sparrow faced extinction as a result... we would still support the development. While recognising the existing contradictions, we would see it as a progressive change.

Those that don&#39;t support the development are not progressives. They are Western, middle class conservatives. These people find political representation in every backward organisation that currently exists: from the Tories to the Greens, from the Countryside Alliance to the Liberals, from the British National Party to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).

The primitivists are merely marginal and, as a result, they are all too easy to criticise. But environmentalist politics is now mainstream. This is a fairly recent development. Since the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio, environmentalism has moved from being a marginal grass roots movement, to finding representation in ruling class politics.

We have to explain this. Why have we seen this major ascendancy of environmentalism, as a political movement, since the end of the 1980s? I have a feeling that it has something to do with the coinciding collapse of progressive political movements brought about by the historic defeat of the working class movement in the 1980s.

Like i argued in another thread:

&#39;In the absence of a working class movement - a class which was politically defeated in the 1980s and which has not yet recovered from this historic defeat - there is no section in society putting forward a progressive alternative to the capitalist mode of production. Humanity continues to be subordinated to the market. The difference today is that there&#39;s no working class movement putting forward an alternative.

What we have instead are various reactionary positions that have emerged to fill the political vacuum left behind by the retreat of the working class movement. A key characteristic of these positions is the loss of faith in the human project of mastering circumstances - since it was the working class movement that embodied this project, in the materialist sense of challenging the capitalist arrangements that undermine conscious human control of circumstances.

In this social and political climate, degraded views of humanity are currently flourishing. From &#39;animal rights&#39; to &#39;environmentalism&#39;, we have to be careful about what we give our support to and what we condemn and distance ourselves from. We&#39;re in a peculiar historical situation. We need to be able to find our bearings and be able to identify and support progressive movements where and when they emerge, and identify and confront the reactionary currents within the left that are passed off as &#39;radical&#39;.&#39;

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 02:52 pm

Could it be...because "degradation" by definition usually does mean a bad thing?

I showed that the word has positive connotations. It can mean to reduce to a lower rank, to weaken, to reduce in intensity. In this sense, we do need to degrade nature if we are to master it and make it serve our ends. Humanity cannot be free until it accomplishes this. The alternative is human degradation.
Whilst I do not support arbitarily curbing technological growth for the sake of "mother nature" I would like to point ourt that our species, currently anyway. still relies on parts of the ecosystem very heavily and as such degrading it would lead indirectly to human degradation.


However, if a major firm wanted to set up shop on some undeveloped land in the countryside - therefore creating jobs, giving way to urbanisation, helping to reduce the divisions between town and country - but this meant that the local air would be that much less fresher, that the local coastline would be that much less cleaner, that there would be a few less trees, and a local breed of sparrow faced extinction as a result... we would still support the development. While recognising the existing contradictions, we would see it as a progressive change. Fair enough.


Those that don&#39;t support the development are not progressives. They are Western, middle class conservatives. These people find political representation in every backward organisation that currently exists: from the Tories to the Greens, from the Countryside Alliance to the Liberals, from the British National Party to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). As long as you don&#39;t take that view to its logical extreme and reject any technological advances that lessen the impact of capitalism on the environment.


The primitivists are merely marginal and, as a result, they are all too easy to criticise. THis does not mean we shouldn&#39;t. In some countries the fascists are marginal but we still oppose them there. We must take the same approach with the primitivists. No Platform For Primmies.
But environmentalist politics is now mainstream. This is a fairly recent development. Since the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio, environmentalism has moved from being a marginal grass roots movement, to finding representation in ruling class politics. It is a double edged sword. On the one hand we have many anti-tech greens or anti worker greens but we also have a lot more awareness of capitalism&#39;s environmental crimes. Which can be added to its already long list of transgressions against people and efficiancy.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 08:52 am

Could it be...because "degradation" by definition usually does mean a bad thing?

I showed that the word has positive connotations.
C&#39;mon. Everyone knows it&#39;s usually negative. And in speaking of "environmental degredation" obviously people are referring to the negative effects.


Of course, capitalism, as an irrational order (i.e. not subject to conscious human planning), does things to the environment that ought not to be done or that could be done better with workers&#39; control over industry.

Glad you agree. So shouldn&#39;t we oppose these things? When others oppose them, isn&#39;t that sometimes a progressive development we should join?


However, if a major firm wanted to set up shop on some undeveloped land in the countryside - therefore creating jobs, giving way to urbanisation, helping to reduce the divisions between town and country - but this meant that the local air would be that much less fresher, that the local coastline would be that much less cleaner, that there would be a few less trees, and a local breed of sparrow faced extinction as a result... we would still support the development. While recognising the existing contradictions, we would see it as a progressive change.

Industrialization in general? Sure. Each and every case, we&#39;re not obligated to support it.

We can say, and often working people do say: this isn&#39;t the best place for it. We want more pollution controls. Etc.

There are a great many protests in rebellions in China, for example, by peasants opposing industrial pollution that ruins their fields. I think it&#39;s necessary to take sides on class lines: with working people, potential allies of the working class - against the bureaucrats and business owners. Not on the basis of industrial "progress" in general.

What do you think?


Since the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio, environmentalism has moved from being a marginal grass roots movement, to finding representation in ruling class politics.

We have to explain this. Why have we seen this major ascendancy of environmentalism, as a political movement, since the end of the 1980s? I have a feeling that it has something to do with the coinciding collapse of progressive political movements brought about by the historic defeat of the working class movement in the 1980s.

Precisely since then? Has it? Ruling-class politicians have been making concessions to environmentalist sentiment well before that.

Now if you mean the rise of the Green Parties specifically, you&#39;re right. They&#39;re filling a vacuum caused by the rightward drift of the social-democratic and official "Communist" parties. There&#39;s no new working-class initiative sufficient to fill that - so the Green Parties are able to instead. They&#39;re widely perceived as being more "left" than the SPs and CPs.

Of course they certainly aren&#39;t more progressive in class terms. But that doesn&#39;t make &#39;em equivalent to ultrarightist parties either.

I just don&#39;t see how this is a reason for your frontal assault on all environmentalism.

[Vanguard1917]

C&#39;mon. Everyone knows it&#39;s usually negative. And in speaking of "environmental degredation" obviously people are referring to the negative effects.

But the negative meanings of the word are closely tied in with its positive meanings.

And the positive connotations of &#39;degradation&#39; that i mentioned in respect to the environment (with which i assume you agree), would be seen as negative by the environmentalists. Who the hell do we think we are to master nature? Who the hell do we think we are to play God? What sheer arrogance&#33; Get on your bicycle and know your place, you good-for-nothing human. And so on...


Glad you agree. So shouldn&#39;t we oppose these things? When others oppose them, isn&#39;t that sometimes a progressive development we should join?

No, because i support industrialisation, development, urbanisation, more roads, low-cost flights, mobility, working people having the opportunity to see the world, working people having the right to a car, etc. The environmentalists despise all these things, and in doing so they show their disdain for ordinary working people.

In reality, though, such developments have improved and continue to improve human standards of living. We want every single human being in the world to enjoy such living standards... not just privileged Westerners.

In order for this to happen, however, we realise that rapid mass economic development is needed worldwide. The kind of economic development that the Greens see in their worst nightmares. That&#39;s why we want to smash capitalism, because it stands in the way of this development. And that&#39;s why our Marxist position cannot be reconciled with the position of the environmentalists. We attack capitalism (not that most environmentalists actually do such a thing) from completely different angles.

Also, fundamentally, economic development actually improves our environment... from a human perspective, of course (i.e. not necessarily from the perspective of your favourite cuddly animal). This is where environmentalists show their ignorant philitinism the most. It is also where they show their misanthropy. Economic development is the solution to any environmental problem, it is not the problem itself. As this very good article points out: (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/58/) &#39;As human society develops it becomes better able to control the natural world. Humans have increasingly become better able to control disease, curb the impact of the seasons and minimise the impact of natural disasters.&#39;


We can say, and often working people do say: this isn&#39;t the best place for it. We want more pollution controls.

Working people are not saying that. Environmentalism is a middle class movement. Sure, they may be able to win a few working class people to their politics, but the dynamic for the movement is wholly provided by the Western middle class.


There are a great many protests in rebellions in China, for example, by peasants opposing industrial pollution that ruins their fields. I think it&#39;s necessary to take sides on class lines: with working people, potential allies of the working class - against the bureaucrats and business owners. Not on the basis of industrial "progress" in general.

What do you think?

China is the most dynamic country in the world, economically speaking, at the moment. Therefore, it is no suprise that Western environmentalists have started to look there.

We do take sides with the working class. That&#39;s why we should oppose the environmentalist opponents of economic growth in China. Of course, not everyone benefits equally from industrialisation. The people benefitting the most from China&#39;s rapid growth are, no doubt, those at the top. But does that mean that we should oppose this rapid and impressive economic development (relatively speaking) in places like China and, to an extent, India? Is it in our interests to take up environmentalists&#39; criticisms of growth (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/233/)?


Of course they certainly aren&#39;t more progressive in class terms. But that doesn&#39;t make &#39;em equivalent to ultrarightist parties either.

That&#39;s partly why it&#39;s not that helpful to think of the contemporary political landscape using the old left-right dimension.

One interesting thing about environmentalism is that it appears to &#39;transcend&#39; politics. At least that&#39;s the consensus. It&#39;s argued that it&#39;s not a &#39;political issue&#39;; it&#39;s not a left-right issue; it&#39;s about the survival of our planet; &#39;future generations&#39;, and so on.

But the reality is that this is a political movement that has emerged to fill a vacuum. The old politics of left and right are fading away, largely because those politics had their base in a real life class struggle that&#39;s no longer as intense as it once was (assuming that it even exists in a real social sense). That&#39;s why all sides of the political landscape have taken up environmentalism... because their old politics no longer mean much to anyone. In Britain at least, each political party is trying to out-green the Greens.